Canon EOS 6D Mark II Review

Introduction

The Canon EOS 6D Mark II is the company's latest full-frame DSLR aimed at advanced amateurs and enthusiasts, and even professionals looking for a second Canon DSLR body. Its all-new 26MP sensor has Dual Pixel technology for accurate autofocus during live view shooting, and it gains the same 45-point autofocus system from the crop-sensor EOS 80D for viewfinder shooting. A fully articulating touchscreen, built-in Wi-Fi and GPS capability, and 6.5 fps burst shooting round out the package.

Coming to market over five years after the release of its predecessor, it should come as no surprise that the 6D Mark II builds upon the original in almost every way. Resolution, autofocus performance, burst shooting speed, video shooting and even battery life are all improved.

That said, five years is a long time in the digital camera market, and the competition hasn't stood still. So the question remains: Has the 6D Mark II improved enough?

The original EOS 6D, along with Nikon's D600, jump-started the notion of an 'entry-level' full frame camera; a camera wherein the true value of the thing lay in the size of the sensor, with a somewhat scaled-back feature set and body surrounding it.

The EOS 6D Mark II unabashedly follows in its predecessors' footsteps. Its unique, 26MP full frame sensor is wrapped in a fairly plasticky (though still weather sealed) body, and it makes do with some compromises compared to its full-frame Canon kin - we should stress, though, that this is to be expected given its substantial $1300 discount compared to the 5D Mark IV.

Compromises should be expected given its $1300 discount compared to the EOS 5D Mark IV.

And the compromises in the 6D II are largely the same as those made by the 6D before it: The larger sensor is offset by a lower-spec autofocus system borrowed from the EOS 80D, a lack of 4K video, and a shutter mechanism that tops out at 1/4000 sec, to name a few.

But one could easily argue that, especially given its price point, the 6D Mark II has a lot to offer. It is smaller and lighter than a 5D IV, its articulating screen makes it easier to work at odd angles, and most importantly, it's an affordable entry into the world of full-frame Canon glass and increased depth-of-field control compared to similarly priced cameras with smaller APS-C sensors.

Compared

The market for 'affordable' full frame cameras is leagues more competitive than when the original 6D was released five years ago. We've included the 5D Mark IV for comparative purposes only, as it's targeted at a much higher market than the 6D II.

Canon 6D II

Canon 5D IV

Nikon D750

Sony a7 II

Pentax K-1

Resolution

26MP

30MP

24MP

24MP

36MP

Image stabilization

Lens-based

Lens-based

Lens-based

In-body

In-body

AF system (viewfinder)

45-pt all cross-type

61-pt (41 cross-type)

51-pt (15 cross-type)

117-pt hybrid

33-pt (25 cross-type)

AF system (live view)

Dual Pixel AF

Dual Pixel AF

Contrast Detect

117-pt hybrid

Contrast Detect

Viewfinder

Optical / 98%

Optical / 100%

Optical / 100%

Electronic / 100%

Optical / 100%

LCD type

3" fully articulating

3.2" fixed

3.2" tilting

3" tilting

3.2" articulating

Touchscreen

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

Built-in flash

No

No

Yes

No

No

Flash sync

1/180 sec

1/200 sec

1/200 sec

1/250 sec

1/200 sec

Burst rate (w/AF)

6.5 fps

7 fps

6.5 fps

5 fps

4.4 fps

Video

1080/60p

4K/30p

1080/60p

1080/60p

1080/30p

Wireless

Wi-Fi w/NFC & BT

Wi-Fi w/NFC

Wi-Fi

Wi-Fi w/NFC

Wi-Fi

Battery life

1200 shots

900 shots

1230 shots

350 shots

760 shots

MSRP (as of July 2017)

$1999

$3499

$1999

$1548

$1800

While at first glance, it's apparent that the 6D Mark II is at least competitive with challengers from Nikon and Sony, it should be noted that both the D750 and a7 II have been on the market for some time, and frankly, are due for an upgrade. For stills shooters, the Pentax K-1 is in a somewhat different league, offering much higher resolution and build quality, but with a more limited lens ecosystem than you get with the Canon EF mount.

But neither of those other systems feature Dual Pixel AF, which we've found in other Canons to be a revelation for those that shoot video or stills in Live View, even occasionally. We've said previously that Dual Pixel makes for one of the best Live View experiences on the market, even though it's an 'old-school' DSLR. So let's see how the 6D Mark II stacks up.

Comments

Canon, on paper, has provided us with an improved update of features to the original 6D but the implementation is astoundingly poor. The 6DM2 falls so short in so many areas that it should be embarrassing for a camera manufacturer of their standing - and after waiting 5 long years.The reviewers were extremely fair in their comments and I can only hope that Canon changes its approach to be more focused on what customers expect in 2017 at a $2,000 price point, especially considering what the opposition is offering. Call it what you will but $2,000 is not an 'entry level' price.I shoot Canon exclusively and this was a camera I waited to buy. Not now. I do however want them to show everyone why they are the market leader but its starting to feel like I may be witnessing another Nokia in the making ... I certainly hope not.

Well, what many commenters out here seem to neglect is that tbe 6dii is Canon's low-end FF DSLR and as such it is - in Canon's logic - supposed to be the cheapest and least capable of their FF bodies. So there is little to complain: the 6dii is an "o.k" camera but expectedy falls behind the more expensive models.That being said, the 6dii does also fall behind cheaper or similar priced bodies such as the Nikon D750 or the Pentax K1 and probably also behind the Sony A7ii.However, in Canon's own logic it is more probable that customers who have already bought into the Canon ecosystem (i e. lenses) will rather stay with a Canon body than to entirely change into new lenses etc. And this is why they made the 6dii. If their "logic" will succeed or fail - time will tell.

@ottonis I have not stayed with Canon and today I sold the last lens. It is beautiful feeling to break free from vendor lock in situation. Because to stay with Canon means to embrace and worship corporate manners. Such a thing erodes photography talents, because photography is passion. Such a person who worships corporate greed manners will slowly die inside and become irrelevant.

It's OK engineering something to fit into a product hierarchy so it would be OK if the AF wasn't as good as a 1D, ditto the frame rate for continuous shooting and resolution not up to 5D levels etc.

The trouble is, if Canon deliberately put in a sensor that has less DR than it's own (not even class leading) APS-C cameras and has purposely given it DR and AF worse than similarly priced full frame competition they have totally lost the plot.

FF cameras are expected to trounce the APS_C segment and entry level FF cameras should really only lack mechanical capability/robustness/AF capability compared to their pro level brethren. Image quality wise they should be top notch in 2017.

I don't think Canon deliberately put in such a duff sensor. I think it is the best they can do engineering wise to hit this price. It is a sign they are far behind Sony in sensor technology.

If Canon really couldn't develop a better 26MP sensor in time for the release of this camera, they had a number of ways to avoid the current situation:

1) put the 5DIV sensor in it; 2) improve the spec in other areas; 3) start the price at a significantly lower level.

1) With the 5DIV sensor, they could even have put the price up a few hundred dollars and people would have been happy to pay it. 2) an AF joystick and wider AF coverage, or some other combination, would have justified the current price tag for quite a few users. 3) at a price of say $1600 many would see this as reasonable.

The current price and spec combination is clearly a misjudgment of the current market and is damaging the credibility of the brand. Canon are simply overestimating how far brand loyalty/lock-in will stretch.

@ ozturert: Sorry, but have you even read the review. Dual Pixel AF is a great feature in general, but unfortunately not on this camera. IMO the review clearly shows, that live view AF is of very limited usefullness on this camera.

DPAF is far more capable on the EOS M5 and M6, which feature the same sensor than the 80 D. I would call those cameras action capable (not in a league with cameras like Sony A9, Nikon D5 and D 500 or Canon EOS 1DX MK 2,... but ok).

well, i want people to acknowledge that it has a single slot, when nikon decided to release the d7500 with a single card slot (the d7200 has 2) people went mad in the forums haha. they charge 2000$ for a camera with a single card slot? its a joke..

I think the pace of innovation has been distorted by some of Canon's competition. I can appreciate the sheer brilliance of high DR sensors but I can also appreciate that the manufacture of high DR sensors with DPAF in a FF format may be technologically challenging. (Those that would point to the DR in the 5D Mark IV will have to keep in mind that the cost of that camera is considerably higher.)

Again DPR could you please inform us which lens was used for AF testing? This is quite relevant, because in your earlier review of the EOS 77D that got much more positive results for AF, you used the new 70-300 II with nano technology which claims better AF results. Also STM lenses can perform well with dual pixel technology.

Thnx. Didn't realize the exif data was left in it.After studying the images and exif data of not only this AF tracking test, but also of some other's DPR did, I find it hard to draw any conclusions from it. AF testing is a difficult thing. The DPR AF tests I could find all have different circumstances (lighting), different lenses used, different settings and different moving subjects (other clothing/colors/contrast), etc.. It's probably the least 'scientific' test DPR uses.I wouldn't have passed judgement so harsh on such a test and other reviews are popping up now with rather different results regarding AF performance.I'm not saying the 6DII is a great AF performer. It probably isn't. But this kind of testing is bordering useless.

"The DSLR Diehard – “you will only be able to pry my DSLR out of my cold, dead hands”, says a DSLR diehard to a mirrorless guru. A DSLR diehard doesn’t care about EVFs, since OVFs give him the real representation of what his eyes see, not some display with a bunch of fancy OLED pixels. He has tried an EVF before and it gave him a headache. He hates the handling of mirrorless cameras, their terrible balance with long glass and his big fingers don’t fit flimsy grips. He appreciates the solid feel of a DSLR in his hands and feels comfortable with the menu system that doesn’t have a million of different options he could care less about."

@leamik Well, the "sideways glance" at the 6dMk2, which DP used for the feature shot, puts all the artwork, name/logo, model info, in the unfortunate position of being hard to read. Not only that but the camera looks awkward on it's side (I'm aware that there are plenty of portrait shooters). Sure, show the camera on its side somewhere within the copy (perhaps with its screen pulled out) but the feature shot should allow the reader to instantly recognize the camera in the profile the manufacturer intended. Just my $.02.

Good lord, what are you on about? The "feature shot should allow the reader to instantly recognize the camera in the profile the manufacturer intended"....this is not a paid-for advertisement from the manufacturer, besides it's not at all unflattering and it's nice to be a bit different sometimes. I guess there will always be someone to complain, no matter how trivial the matter they are complaining about.

This is what I don't "get" about DPR: with this review, I agree. 100%. You are simply right, spot on: this camera is NOT what it was expected. In the setting of a double-blind study, this camera would be the placebo, while the competition is the active comparator.

...so, like the great late MR used to say - my constant memo to DPR: please change the rating for... (you know which Canon camera was wrongly penalized in my opinion and lost the Gold Award)! :):):)

beavertown--As a loyal Nikon user since the mid 80's, I'm sorry to say that in many respects, you're correct. Canon does seem arrogant (stated by others), but Nikon seems to have lost touch with its most loyal users. That said, I believe their recent hardships may prove to be just the catalyst they need to turn things around. I'm truly hoping so. I am not a mirrorless basher, but I greatly prefer the ergonomics of Canon and Nikon SLR offerings, particularly in harsh weather, so will bide my time with what I have for now. Thank goodness Tokina and others have compensated for the dearth of DX lenses, and thank goodness that in general, what Nikon has out currently is simply stellar, costumer service aside, unfortunately.

As seemingly apparent as Canon's follies, the comments here are very repetitious in content/nature. Out of date...no 4k...competition...Out of date...no 4k...competition...Out of date...no 4k...competition...Out of date...no 4k...competition...Out of date...no 4k...competition...Out of date...no 4k...competition...Out of date...no 4k...competition...Out of date...no 4k...competition...I think it is well understood. Maybe someone can comment about the cameras lack of innovation, no 4K, and the staggering list of competitive cameras available...oh wait

To me this is a shockingly disappointing camera to bring out at this time, considering the significantly superior competition. Presumably the reason for the 6D line of cameras, is to entice new ff users to the Canon line, which means, not upgrading Canon users who already have a lot of ff Canon glass. In that context I think this camera fails. Particularly the aging but excellent Nikon D750, for the same money will produce vastly superior images. The past several years has generally produced incredible leaps forward in sensor technology, speed, and speed and accuracy of focus. Companies are bringing out exciting new cameras like Sony's A6500 and A9, and Nikon's D500. This camera could have been a Canon 5DIV lite, that would have added a little bit of marketing pazazz. But this camera seems to be directly comparable to the Nikon D610 but at a much higher price.

Most cameras, of all kinds, released in recent years, do take nice photos. Some of them have 1" sensors. The Canon 80D, released 18 months ago, can both please you with nicer photos and save you money.

my 40mm lens on an 80d is 60mm or so... I don't need to do that extra math, I spent the money for full frame and I'm totally happy. My Samsung NX500 may still be my best camera I own though, but I had some extra funds, so why not get a 6D mark II #yolo

Well IMO, this camera is good considering the price range. Entry-level full frame camera. I get it, everybody is complaining but I don't see the valid reason for complaining. If you need a more features camera, you have other model to choose from. This is not a Camera that's fits all feature what you want with that price range. Even the TOTL model is incomplete considering your unending list that you wants for a camera. The list can go on.

At the end of the day, be thankful folks that we have more choice to consider in buying a Camera. Buy a Sony if it fits you well, or Nikon. Or if you wants to stay to Canon brands by the 5D Mark IV. My 2 cents..

This hybrid camera was out of date the day it shipped. It's 2017, and it has 2012 video specs. 40% of all TVs shipped this year will be 4K. Do these guys at Canon ever get out to a Costco or Best Buy? Some TVs are shipping with 4K HDR, and 4K Wide Color Gamut. YouTube now supports 4K 60p, and the next iPhone is expected to have 4K 60p. So we have millions of display devices that this "new" camera can't even take advantage of. Pathetic.

It, the 6D Mark II, may be pathetic but the number, or percentage, of TVs shipping with 4K HDR has nothing to do with the number of TVs currently used that don't have 4K. Even in 4 years, the number of non-4K TVs will still out number 4K sets by a big multiple.

@Michael1000 writes, "If you shoot 1080, it will look like a VHS tape in 10 years." This isn't true. Properly produced 1080 will look a lot better than VHS always. It won't degrade with time.

I get what you mean. In a relative sense, 1080 will be to 4K what VHS is to 1080 today. I still think 4K has a long way to go before it is as prevalent as you suggest. Primary reason being content. It isn't likely that OTA content is going to 4K anytime soon. Certain channels will offer it but that's not the same as broad acceptance which is what Canon is aiming for with the 1080p 6D Mark II. Affordable full frame DSLRs and Mirrorless ILCs shoot primarily for display in 1080 if they want to receive wide distribution. If the video is for private use, 4K provides some benefit but you'll always have to scale for acceptance.

Ask your friends around you to see how many of them take 4K videos in their usual, normal, daily lives. Those people are Canon's target group.Downsampling 4K to 1080p? Ask that you your friends as well :)I agree 1080p video is not very sharp. I don't mind but some do. What I don't want is digital noise, bad colour and jello effect in my videos.

I imagine you watch most video's at your computer screen. At normal viewing distances from a TV (6.6 foot) you can't really appreciate 4k until you have a 60 inch screen (ideally bigger than 68 inches). I don't think all that many of those 40% of screens are bigger than 68 inches. 1080p will actually never look that bad as our eyes won't be getting better with time wheras nobody thought VHS looked that good in its day (it was always worse than terrestrail broadcasts). As it happens very few video proferssionals are going to buy this camera so the majority of videos are going to be of kiddies and such, and those really don't need to be 4k. Possibly there are a few wedding photograhers who would use the feature but then again they should be buying a separate camera for film. The type of couples asking for 4k wedding footage are hiring a pretty expensive wedding photographer anyway.

I just went on Wikipedia, and they showed 73 portable devices that shoot 4K video, and they don't even have all the devices produced, such as the Galaxy S8. Some of the devices DISPLAY 4K. Yet, Canon ships a device in 2017 that all it does it take pictures and video that costs $2000 without even a lens, and it doesn't have 4K video. The 6D Mk II must be part of the new Canon Heritage Edition line.

@dave8Dave, this is a brand new camera. The A7II and the D750 are three years old. New FF cameras from Nikon and Sony in this segment will have 4K.

This isn't the first time Canon has released a new camera that wasn't leading in specification at launch. This is a new concept they have introduced to the market. Normally a new camera has the most advanced spec seen up till that point.

@ozturert, please go to Wikipedia and show us all the Canon DSLRs that shoot 4K without a crop.

Someone at Canon left the door wide open for Nikon. Nikon has the glass, the color science, the codecs, the dynamic range, and they will have 4K full frame no crop within months. Canon just shot themselves in the foot at the starting line, twice!

"DPR admits that the 6D Mark II is a better camera than the 6D in nearly every respect, so what gives?"

The 6D entered a much less competitive market, and was a relatively stronger offering back then, than the 6D II is now. DPR compares cameras against their current rivals, not against their predecessors.

What we have here is a reluctance by DPR to call DPAF what it is. A game changer for video and live view shooters. Canon knows that DPAF sells more cameras than Nikon's dynamic range claims. Scaling DPAF technology for full frame sensors must be very challenging. I wouldn't be thrilled to give up 3 stops of DR choosing the 6D Mark II over a Nikon D750 but I might not give it much thought if my style of photography aligned closely with DPAF benefits.

DPR may have said it a million times, "DPAF is great!" but that's no excuse for not recognizing its value in the 6D Mark II. This camera is an easy silver award winner in my book. YMMV

It's true that I don't have a lot of experience with mirrorless systems but who can own so many cameras. Haha On a serious note, have you read the reviews of Canon cameras with DPAF?

The Canon M5, "While the lack of 4K video capability is a disappointment, the ability to use the touchscreen to re-position the focus point with a high level of confidence that the camera will smoothly glide the focus to the right point is highly desirable."

Phrases like "highly desirable" regularly pop-up in DPR reviews of Canon's with this technology. I trust DPR and until I acquire a enormous pile of money, they'll be doing a lot of my testing for me. ;-)

What you're seeing there is Dpreviews unconcious bias against Canon. Dual pixel combined with touchscreen is just what the multitudes of non-enthusiasts are looking for. However in this case I do support the Canon bashing on the DR of the sensor as canon has already shown it can produce a FF sensor with dual pixel and no hit to DR. Canon is using their old process on this one to save money and they need to know that the customer does not want that.

I'm pretty certain that the all-new 26MP sensor in the new 6D isn't manufactured "using their old process". For one thing its Dual Pixel design is different than the non-Dual Pixel chip.

I'd bet Canon wishes they'd had more DR to offer. Not that they withheld it. They could have easily, from a marketing perspective, have positioned the 26MP chip with better DR below the 5D Mark IV. Failure to do so suggests, to me, that there's a technical hurtle necessary to make these sensors with more DR at the price point needed to make adequate profit.

The 5D IV has dual pixel and lots more DR so they can do it (also the 1DXII). The M5 and M6 sensor is 24mp which means they could make a FF 48mp sensor using the same process and stitching and would end up with the same DR. Its not the process per se but Canon putting the analog to digital converter on chip as apposed to off chip that creates the problem. Canon had aleady improved the process node to make the dual pixel in the first place and there was no great improvement in DR. The DR improvement came from a per column ADC that Canon debuted on thier 80D sensor. I can only think that at best it is capacity constraints that has made Canon use an off sensor ADC this time, but I suspect its more to do with development costs and using an older imaging pipeline that had the ADC off sensor.

According to Richard the quoted DR figure is not equivalent to DXO numbers that everyone is used to quoting. I think that gives a false impression. Only you can say if there is an unconscious bias against Canon or not. I am only pointing out that I firmly believe the DXO numbers will be significantly better than the ones DPReview quoted. Do you disagree?

Hi Carey I didn't say you didn't do reviews or bring up dual pixel but that there is an "unconscious bias". So a Canon camera is much more likely to have a weakness highlighted (eg the "not so fast article on the 5D") have a competitor mentioned in the same paragraph as any praise (but then see how little Canon is mentioned in a Nikon review) or have hard to prove statements made about its performance (eg The D5 focus leaves the 1DXII in the dust), how did you show that with a camera that's 2fps faster. The DR range advantage of other cameras over Canon has been demonstrated by numerous articles (I could find 4 with a simple search). However there is not even one comparison article showing how much better dual pixel is than lets say Nikons live view. In fact DR is a mantra around here whereas the average camera user will get far more mileage out of dual pixel in video and live view. That is unconscious bias, its unconscious because you don't even realise you're doing it.

Hmm, most brand lovers, including me and my brand, complains about bias towards our own pet.To make it simple: If your ambitions are to beat Nikons Live view AF speed, then I think you need to set your expectations higher.

I agree that gear sites, such as this, tends to focus on what they can measure.DR is one of those things.

I'm eagerly awaiting a good AF test that at least is repeatable.

( Something as simple as an analog stop watch mounted on a toy car rolling down a pre built slope would give so much more that todays 'feeling' of speed. - Then you could see sharpness and the stopwatch would give you a true fps. - And it could be used for both video and stills. )

A repeatable autofocus test would be dead easy to set up but either journalists are not the diy type (quite possible) or they'd have to start being more objective (and thats just not going to get the hits). Then there is the possibility of a manufacturer gaming the the test once its established (much like VW did with the diesel emissions). As it happens I don't actually own any Canon gear but noticed a few years back how anti Canon this site was becoming so I've ended up defending a brand I don't even have a connection with just because I can not stand that type of injustice. They're also quite pro-Sony (and I own Sony) so I don't believe these are imagined or a response to personal bias.

Is it just a coincidence, DPR? When the 6D was first rated, you praised the defectively-designed D600 as substantially better. Then Nikon acknowledged that D600 was indeed defective by rapidly releasing a replacement called D610. That didn't make you change your rating on the defective camera called D600. You retained your rating because owners of that camera are ok with oil splatters all over the sensor, a much more serious flaw than DR "defeciencies" of this new 6D model? It may be coincidental, hence I am asking. Now you bashed the 6DMII big time. Habitual now, blokes? And how do I recover shadows from a photograph dirtied by oil from a defectively engineered body? And have we learned since then - to scope in such defects BEFORE we award Gold? I am not talking about 1 defect per million re the D600. The defect per million was so high you should have revised your rating but you did not. And Nikon wanted to not be burdened by such oily rep that they decided to fix it and call it D610.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d600/23 Gold! You're right, perhaps because it was giving free oil before oil prices crashed in the market! Just really curious now on how they really make final decisions to rate and how they have been continuously improving the process since then.

I'm a big Canon fan. I shot canon professionally for years. 2 Years ago, I made the switch to SONY and have never looked back. It would be very hard to go back to regular viewfinder after using EVF. Plus the tilt screen so when I'm shooting high on the tripod. With the 5d system, I had to attach a camranger to have remote capabilities with ipad/iphone. The sony has wi fi built in and a pretty good app that works fantastic. Plus, all my Canon lenses adapt fine and focus fast (I do not shoot sports, etc). The 17mm tilt shift is so much nicer on the Sony with assist and peaking.

"The 17mm tilt shift is so much nicer on the Sony with assist and peaking." That's what I'm talking about! You've found that assist and peaking make your photography better. Just the sort of use case scenario that buyers of Canon cameras with DPAF will experience. They might wish their Canon had focus assist and peaking but they'll love that it has DPAF. Just my $.02.

@thegreat26 I do not understand your reply. They decided it was more expedient to replace than repair, correct. Was the camera that far gone or do they not have decent repair facilities? I am not familiar with Pentax Europe. Do they have many repair facilities, loaner bodies, lenses etc. like the big camera companies do or do they farm it out to other companies like Sony does?

My dear @roustabout66 I live in Cyprus if this makes you understand what is going on. If I have Pentax, or Canon or Nikon(which I own) they will send it abroad for repair/replacement. No repair facilities here or loaner bodies for anybody. So I can't really know what is happening in other countries.

I guess living on an island does change the dynamics greatly. I live in the United States and Canon has EXCELLENT repair and support here. Nikon also has their own repair and support facilities but Nikon tends to keep the equipment longer and charges more. I think all of the smaller camera companies here hire third parties to do repairs. Service and support are the reasons I only buy Canon and Nikon.

I couldn't agree more. I read about how good is Canon's Pro service. But again forgetting the not so good AF-c from K1 compared to let's say my D750 it gave me more for my money(considering i already had some k mount lenses).

Seriously, compared to others, 6D was already a lame DSLR as it was a renamed clone of the great 5DII. Almost same sensor, same AF, 10% faster fps, a GPs but no 1/8000 shutter speed etc... Oh they gave up CF for SD card... right. There are more differences between 6DII and 6D than between 6D and 5DII. Where was the progress ? Launch price: 2000$ for a FF DSLR. But at that time, 5DII was cheaper. progress...?It was 5 years ago and people were already talking 'bout the lack of DR among Canon sensors compared to Sony's.This 6DII brings a lot of very usefull gadgets but the aging sensor is 5 more years older. The mistake is becoming a fault. Even if 6D IQ is good, why a 2000$ upgrade if IQ doesn't progress when the competition is ahead for years ?This camera is the one Canon could and should have produced as the 6D 5 years ago to make its lack of DR forgotten. Now is both too late ans too pricey.

Because the original 6D was produced as an entry level full-frame DSLR in response to the Nikon D600. Canon had no motivation to deliver anything but a full frame version of the 60D in order to avoid cannibalizing sales from the 5DmkIII. I agree, you could do just as well with a 5DmkII than the original 6D. But 5 years back a used 5DmkII was still expensive, and there are always people who wanted a smaller and lighter body instead.

About the only real advantage the 6D had over the 5DmkII was the more sensitive center point for low light shooting, and a higher ISO threshold. It may not mean much for most people, but I am a stage photographer who rarely works below ISO 1600, so I'd benefit from that. I'm currently a Nikon user, but was previously on Canon APS-C. My Nikon D750's ability to focus down to -3EV makes a significant difference to my hit rate when I'm shooting backlit subjects in already bad lighting conditions.

When the 6D got on sales, it was a 2000€ cam in Europe, while the 5DII ended its carrier at 1400€. That's why I'm asking what progress ? Yeah indeed, 6D was in 2012 an "entry level" cloning the 5DII. 5DII was in 2008 a semi-pro cam.

Actually, Nikon rushed to beat Canon to the entry-level FF body hence rushed to release the D600 despite engineering and design defects, that they later on corrected with the D610, release to the market less than a year after the D600 fiasco.

Noogy - I see that you are trying very hard to defend Canon by attacking Nikon, so let me give you a hand here...Not only does the D600 a fiasco, so is the D750...had recalls twice. I for one has the original D750 from the 1st recall with the shutter issue that I'm still working with Nikon's repair department because they couldn't replicate the problem. I had to write out step by step on how to replicate it; still waiting for my return label from Nikon...

Entry level Nikon has had reliability issues. However, the recalls would/should fix the problems, except mine. I'll tell you in a month if it's fixed.

Canon's issue is beyond repair, because Canon had purposely crippled the DR on the 6D II sensor to protect both the 5D IV and 80D lines. You get the point?

Admirable patience Joed700. I would have given up on Nikon if I were you. Image quality is something that a photographer can influence. Technical specs had very little to do with most of my published work (used a point and shoot camera for a handful of them). Design and manufacturing defect? No. There was a time I kept running into issues over a laptop manufacturer, until it became clear to me their manufacturing FA and QA is part of the problem, enough for me to give up on the brand once and for all.

Canon didn't cripple it to save sales they did it to save money. Personally I think its worse than doing it intentionally as if it was intentional it would show you they value the feature and know their customers want it (hence forcing them to buy the other camera). Here its a case of "the won't notice if we use the old sensor but our shareholders are going to appreciate the extra profit". This needs to bomb a little so they get the message.

No way to confirm it's an old sensor. I may be a "bad new" sensor. At the same time, there is market for entry-level FF that the 6DMII will cater to, the 99.9% of customers who don't care about what's posted here.

Noogy - "given up on Nikon..." I did, and that's why I set foot into the Canon world 2 yrs ago...bought the 6D and several L lenses; the 6D was my go to camera over the D750 and D810...I was so ready to switch to Canon only when they came out with the 5D IV, but the price was too high for what it is...waited for the 6D II, and that's when I realized that Canon is playing this protectionism game with all their products. As I had stated on my other posts, I would need several Canon bodies in order to get the features..resolution, high ISO, DR..etc. where it's competitors would have included most of the features in one camera body at a low price....

ozturert - "Canon crippled 6D II to save 80D.." Yes, just like how it crippled the full functionality of the 5D IV to protect their pro video equipment. Looking back at the trend the 6D is the FF version of the 60D; 60D has an articulated screen, but not the 6D....

I got the 5DMIV and cut my agony short :) I am still going to grab the 6DMII as back up body though, now that it's out. Sony has done some really cool stuffs lately. Until they re-do the ergonomics of their bodies, it's not for me.

@joed700 'Crippled' sounds pretty extreme. The Nikon D5 and D500 also have lower DR than the D810 or D750, and nobody actually calls it crippled.

Seriously, what exactly are you shooting that you need to shoot 5 stops underexposed and then push it back in post that you need that kind of dynamic range for? If you're a landscape photographer and can't have any noise in your image, then chances are you'd bracket your shot and combine them into a HDR shot anyway.

Thermidor - "Seriously, what exactly are you shooting that you need to shoot 5 stops underexposed and then push it back in post that you need that kind of dynamic range for?"

I find it interesting that you would ask this question since you own a D750. Would you ask people why they would need video features in a still camera? or Why would people use their phone to text, go online, and taking photos?

In regards to the word "cripple", I suppose you can argue the Nikon crippled the D5, but the D5 is Nikon's most expensive camera in Nikon world...does this have any logic to it? The D500 is an APS-C camera and it has a dynamic range of 14.0 while the D810 had DR at 14.8 and the D750 at 14.5...the D500 still has more DR than any Canon body can offer as of 2017. Beside, it's an APS-C, what would you expect? On the other hand, the 6DII has DR worse than their APS-C 80D (13.2) and in some situations worse than the 6D (at 12.1) ...at the end of day it's just an opinion.

Thermidor - While we are debating on the 6D II vs Nikon, Tony N has just released a video on the D850 specs with 47MP, 4K, tilty touch screen, 9 fps, xqd-SD card slots with a 51 raw buffer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yerE1npLwBY

I'm not sure if Canon's issue is even relevant anymore....Although nothing has been 100% confirmed, but the D850 looks pretty good, and I'm sure Nikon would cripple something..

D850 will be rival to 5Dsr which was released 2 years ago. It is normal that D850 will be better in many aspects.6D II is D750's counterpart which was also released years ago. The new D760 (or whatever) will probably be released in 1 year and will definitely be better. Newer cameras are better, naturally.6D II is also better than D750 and 6D in many areas. The only area that it is behind looks to be DR if you lift shadows beyond 3 EV.

Ozturent - I'm not even talking about DR comparisons between Canon and Nikon, because that's history. I'm talking about the way how Canon's business model vs Nikon. Nikon is generous in terms of giving customers the things they want while Canon is playing protectionism on all their products. Everything that the D850 is offering should have been on the 5D iv, but no. As I had posted in my other posts way back. All the features on the M5 should have been on the 5D IV plus full functions of 4K. Let's just ignore the protectionism ideal for a minute. How can Canon justify selling a new model camera that's been outperformed by their older modes in some of the more critical areas like DR and memory card technology, which ultimately affect the buffer. Even Nikon's entry level cameras have 100% viewfinders; 1/250 flash sync speed; dual memory card slots....

From a value vs performance perspective alone, it's a good reason to leave Canon and try some else.

Joed, which Nikon entry-level cameras have %100 VF, 2 AD slots etc..?Guys, I don't see the point to turn this into Canikon war. If you like Nikon better, go with it. I sold D810 for the sake of 5D II, then sold that too due to size and weight. Now I have an old 5D and several mirrorless cameras.One is better in some areas, the other is better in others. Is it so difficult to see and accept this?

Ozturent - You traded your D810 for a 5D II...why I'm I even having this conversation with? The D810 is still one of the best camera Nikon has to offer in term of DR and image quality equals to MF at ISO 64. Your former 5D II couldn't even focus properly...they finally fixed the focusing issues with the release of 5DIii... you actions speak for itself...you don't know what the heck you are talking about, and yet you tried so hard to defend Canon. Wow, that's just incredible!

This isn't about Canikon war. I own both Nikon and Canon; I'm speaking from personal experience, especially with it comes to DR.

@joed700 I was a Canon APS-C user before I jumped ship to Nikon. The reason I got a D750 isn't because of the dynamic range, but because I primarily shoot stage performances in low light, and I needed the D750's ability to focus down to -3EV, faster burst speed, 3D tracking and lower noise output due to the newer sensor.

Why didn't I go for the original 6D instead? Because I had very bad experiences with Canon's customer service. Jumping over to Nikon full frame is also a much cheaper option because I went for older screw-drive lenses which are much cheaper than the equivalent L lens.

Even when I shoot in daylight, I almost never need to push more than 1 stop in post unless I made a mistake. So what if Canon cameras have less dynamic range than Nikon? I don't need it for low light. On the other hand, the D750's live view AF speed and accuracy is utter garbage compared with my previous 70D. Now that's something that I certainly would want to see Nikon improve upon.

Thermidor - I did the opposite of what you did, somewhat... I've been shooting Nikon since the film era, but ever since the release of D800 and D600, I started to question if Nikon is a good company. Fortunately, I'm not on a tight budget like many out there. I thought I should give Canon a chance...bought a 6D and several L lenses 2 years ago. The 6D was slow compared to my D750, but the Canon glasses were top notch in terms of build quality and IQ. However, the DR has always been an issue, but I learned how to go around it. So, Canon isn't so bad I thought...I was ready to switch over the Canon when they announced the release of the 5D IV, but we all know what happened..too pricey for what it offers...waited another year and finally the 6D II was announced, but that's when I finally realized that Canon has no future for me, because it's trying too hard to protect every one of it's product. APS-C, entry FF, FF with good DR, FF with high Res, sports... Waiting for the D850..

@Joed700 I guess we simply have different needs. The only L glass I had was the 70-200 f4. I personally prefer Canon's colour rendition: it makes my post processing work somewhat easier when dealing with stage lights. I find that on the Nikon (and Fuji), the image preview in LR isn't exactly the same as my output for some reason, but I had no such problem with a Canon.

Nikon's AF-D lenses aren't as impressive in terms of colours, contrast and sharpness as an L glass, but they cost less than half of one, and since most of my shooting happens in ISO 3200 or 6400, my sharpness and colours are already compromised to begin with, so absolute image quality doesn't bother me. As long as the lens can focus fast and accurate enough, that's all I need.

I'm pretty happy with my D750, but my bad neck and back makes it hard to lug around, so eventually I'd have to sell if off and go back to an APS-C DSLR. Of which admittedly the Canon 200D is looking like the best option.

Capture One is unfortunately way too expensive for me. It's twice the price of Lightroom, and this had been a pretty bad year for paid photography, so unless things pick up, I don't see myself switching over.

Why? A lot of those cons exist in cameras people rave about. The Nikon D5 has reduced DR at 100 ISO, the D750 has mushy buttons, the Nikon D7500 has one card slot. Nobody cares about those. The D5 is 3 TIMES THE PRICE and even it has reduced DR at low ISOs. Where's the wailing and crying about that? Nowhere.

There is a big difference between cutting edge and cutting corner and the way this product turn out is the latter. It's mind boggling that Canon is already making a giant leap with its 80D but not this for their full frame version?

It may be, but it still won't be good enough once Nikon and Sony releases their updated entry level FF camera, which will surely have the 6DMkii's features and more, and it will especially fall behind considering it's 5 year life cycle. Although now that the others have seen the cards Canon are playing, they may decide to withhold features until future releases. Great, consumers lose. Thanks Canon.

Please enlighten us on your interpretation of social use. Social to me sounds like events with friends and acquaintences like dinners, informal gatherings, hanging out at the mall/park/beach and other times where taking selfies or photos for personal keep or sharing with Social media. I dont think this camera appeals to those situations.

Very disappointing. I've been waiting for this camera. But because of Canon's strategy to artificially 'dump-it-down' I'll pass. It's time to bite-the-bullet and simply admit that Canon can not keep up with Sony's sensors, buy a Sony, and sell-off all my Canon accessories.

So I take it your only interest is gear and not making images? Your strategy is going to be costly. If you think Sony is going to make you a better photographer, you're dreaming. If you can't produce great images with Canon, Sony isn't going to be your magic pill. The rules of exposure and composition still apply with Sony.

If you think DR alone or 4K defines which product is superior then go out and buy a Sony. Personally, just handling a Sony (each end every one of their mirrorless cameras) drives me nuts. That makes Sony the inferior product to me.

So buying a Sony would make me think of myself as being an idiot, right? Be there, done that. I do not have a Sony anymore (and except for my old 5D no up to date Canon either). I would feel stupid if I still had one. I was not happy to be milked by Sony and what I got was mostly a nice spec sheet and a bunch of different frustrations.

I am pretty convinced that a fun camera in my hand is better than a great spec sheet at the wall.

RyanBoston.. you are correct that certain people like different tools to do similar jobs. For myself and what i have read by TORN just above.. Sony is not the tool we need. For my needs, I consider the A7RII a great sensor and the rest is total rubbish. This 6D Mark II also comes up short for my needs, but I would take it as a back up camera over anything Sony has to offer.

6D owner here, looking for an upgrade. It sure won't be the 6D Mark II, the 5D Mark IV has a steep price even a year after its release, the 4K capability is unfortunately limited due to the MJPEG codec and the crop factor. I really didn't want to switch to Sony but I'm now seriously considering it. Come on Canon!

Canon releases the 6D2 and it isn't what you were hoping for so suddenly you're thinking of divorcing Canon and jumping ship? Wow. I will hate to see what happens to you when Sony fails to live up to your expectations. Better quit photography.

In 5 years, Canon will announce a whole new sensor tech for 6DIII: inspired by digital back, you could use a removable different sensor for each photo. Color, contrast, DR at top. Each sensor can have its own recording setting. These sensors are fin, and flexible. They're packed in a rolling cartridge... And you could use top of the line Canon scanner to transfer each file to your PC. Canon: innovation at its best.

Altought there's too much obsession toward DR (a good photo does not need extra HDRish "horribly fake looking" post production)... I have to say that at least a little increase would have been appreciated, or, at least, a couple of stop better at high iso. But both of these have not happened. No double slot (back up of RAW files during weddings would be nice), no better general quality than 6D (which I love...) so, why buying it? Just for dual pixel and swivel screen? C'mon Canon...

The good news is that 6D mk II will go down with the price very soon and so 6D will be even cheaper :)I was just looking for a second body...

"The good news is that 6D mk II will go down with the price very soon and so 6D will be even cheaper :)"

Wrong. The 6D mkI hasn't dropped that much in price over the years, and if it follows the same trend that the 5D3 is taking, it won't fora long time. The 6D2 is going to make enough money for Canon to make a profit and they won't need to have buying incentives outside of holiday sales.

Once the people who have bought the 6D2 (you know, the ones who ignored the DPR and YouTube experts and actually bought the camera) start posting their images to the internet, interest in the camera will increase. It isn't going to drop in price that fast, and all those comments on here saying it will make me laugh.

@Scorehound I'm not saying it's a "bad" camera, but it's not clearly better (the sensor is even a bit worse) than 6D, so people won't buy something born old. I think 6D II will drop greatly in 5 or 6 months. So used 6D will be always under a certain price, camera market it's always been like this.

Then, I really don't understand this move from Canon. I was waiting 6D mk II to make it my main body for work. I was just hoping for:

For some reason Canon preferred making a camera for noobs, but forgot the "numbers": today noobs are obsessed with DR and things like that, they don't understand what's a good photo (or a comfortable body). But I can't completely blame them. It's stupid selling gear with 5 years ago equivalent quality...Maybe Canon want to sell more 5D mk IV

@DPReview Any chance of a Canon interview regarding this camera? Or maybe ask for an official response at least?

Given the overwhelming disappointment with this once highly anticipated camera, it's only fair that Canon get a chance to explain & defend the decisions that went into it(or at least try to). And I think we'd all like to hear what they have to say & their reasoning.

That's never going to happen, the fact that it's a disappointing and "old born" camera (and that's undeniable) doesn't mean that it will sell poorly, and thanks to the recent revamp about D750 shutter issues (that despite being older is actually superior to the 6DII in many aspects) and lack of competition by Sony at that price level in the entry level market (the A7II isn't a great camera) it might still end up selling pretty well anyway.

"Given the overwhelming disappointment with this once highly anticipated camera, it's only fair that Canon get a chance to explain & defend the decisions that went into it(or at least try to).And I think we'd all like to hear what they have to say & their reasoning."

Their reason is simple. They built a camera to fit in a particular market that balances price and features. DPReview thinks this camera is for casual shooters, and that demographic is HUGE. So just because pixel peepers hate it doesn't make it a disappointment. It may not sell huge to the professional market, but the semi-pros and amateurs that want FF without having to buy the 5D mkIV or 1DX mkII will buy this camera and they will most likely love it.

kind of hard to think that this FF is for casual shooter. when I was a casual shooter, I put the whole dslr in the same bin. I won't know which one is apsc, which one is full frame, nor the difference between them.

things get different when I already bought apsc camera, I will research the thing thoroughly, watch every single review, to see if the thing you're buying at is the best next thing. because those people don't drop $2000 casually. and to them specs matter most. even if they choose Canon, why not get 6D and 1 L lens instead, if you can't nail a shot with 6D, 6D m2 with dual pixel af won't magically transform your photo into a masterpiece.

Actually, it's a pretty good camera. It got a silver award from DPR and has the same dynamic range as the 5D4.

It's also almost HALF the price of the 6DII. You could buy it and the exceptional 55/1.8 for less than the 6DII body.

Here's what DPR said about it:

'The Alpha 7 II continues to push Sony's full frame mirrorless line of cameras into ground-breaking territory. It is the only full frame mirrorless camera to offer in-body image stabilization systems and its performance is excellent. The body is comfortable to shoot with and offers a broad set of features that should appeal to both still and video shooters. Unfortunately the a7 II's high ISO image quality is not as good as other full framers. Raw files are also less malleable than the competition and JPEGs tend to suffer from aggressive noise reduction.'

@RubberDials I'm pretty sure "pretty good" doens't mean great camera ;)As review said, it's sensor performance is behind it's competitors and the body definitely isn't as reactive as a DSLR.I'm sure they will improve it with the A7III tho, specially since we've seen what the A9 can do.

@BabuYou know - as do I, that the english expression 'isn't great' doesn't mean that something is not great, it means that something is 'pretty bad'.

I was just redressing the balance somewhat. The A7II is not a great camera by any means - the score and the silver award reflects that. But it still offered more when it was released than the 6DII does and is still a better camera in many areas, for almost half the money.

Amazing to see which comments are the most popular comments. The negative ones, obviously. But I guess that's what most of us do on the net: If we have a chance to p*ss on something, we do.

Guess what: I bought the 6DMII. And judging by the fact that the camera here isn't available anywhere anymore, I'm not the only one.

So should the camera have been better? Yes, for sure.Does this make it a bad camera? Nope.

I replaced my 6D with the MkII for various reasons. Yes, I had hoped for more after all this time, but it still is a great camera and I am sure I'm going to have a lot of fun with it. And isn't that what it's all about?

This camera isn't dropping in price anytime soon. Canon doesn't decide to adjust their prices based on what DPReview users are bitching about with any given piece of gear. They're like any other market driven company.

I think the Nikon D7500 is a piece of crap for Nikon, but it is going to sell very well and be successful for them. as it should. The opinions of social media users do not matter. Sales matter. If the Canon 6D2 sells like hotcakes and makes Canon a nice profit, then the camera was a success. If sales underwhelm, Canon will look at what went wrong and try to do better. Every company does.

Yeah, because of holidays and other events. Everyone else thinks this camera sucks so bad Canon is going to drop their prices on it within 2-3 months due to lack of sales. I figured that is what you were referring to. Calm down. :-)

@Tonkotsu: Yes as an early adopter you always pay more. For everything (not just for Canon). But that's simply a choice one makes.You can wait, but the price will always drop. So how long are you willing to wait?In the meantime, I'm having fun. :-)

I have been using the original 6D at work since 2013. Picked up a Fuji X camera few years back and been using that a lot more. The only thing that's been holding me back from completely moving to the X system are two things: waiting to see what would be offered by 6D MKII, and the lack of TTL remote triggers on the market for Fuji system. The first thing has been a disappointment. The second thing...well, with Roboshoot and now Flashpoint soon coming out with TTL remote triggers for Fuji, I think I may have been pushed over the edge.

Why did you even bother to review? It doesn't have the DR and iso invariance of a Sony. It wasn't made by Sony. Why did you waste your time? It was made by Canon and therefore not worthy of your time and effort. All the Sony fanboys will agree. They all want Canon to fail. According to DPR, the only camera line worthy of consideration is Sony. What will be DPR's biggest complaint when Nikon finally releases the D850with whatever attributes that it has? It isn't mirrorless.

'According to DPR, the only camera line worthy of consideration is Sony' - where did you read that? I mean our top 10 highest scoring interchangeable lens cameras of all time contains 4x Nikon, 3x Canon, 2x Sony and 1x Samsung, which kind of suggests you're wrong (and 7 of those 10 were in the last 2 yrs).

It's funny that you talk like this. Your sarcasm is cute. I remember 10 years ago when I bought the Sony A100 everybody laughed at me and the Canikon fanboys would make fun of me too. Well, I've stayed faithful to Sony and look where we are now... Canon with a lame 5 year release cycle and Nikon in the verge of severe financial problems while Sony is putting some of the best cameras and sensor technology out there.You sir are just in denial and sore that Canon is not doing anything interesting these days.

Yes, lets not call out your brand's weak attempt to stay competitive. Let's assure them they don't need to compete so they will continue to ignore the competition. Good way to give you warm and fuzzy feelings now while letting Canon stagnate.

@alpard78. Glad to see that you have stuck with Sony through all these years because they have made lots of cameras and it must have been an expensive journey. Sony has had multiple cameras and variations since Minolta.I have owned and still own a Sony laptop (VAIO) and while it has basically been an excellent laptop, Sony got out of the business. Sony has 2 lines of full frame cameras going plus variations on aps-c cameras. When are they going to cut bait and rationalize all of those lines. I went to the Sony demo for the A9. Extremely impressive camera. But it does lack in certain ways. The one I found was with an 85mm lens mounted there was not much room between lens and fingers.I am interested to see Canon's and Nikon's response to the A9. Hopefully it pushes them to compete. Yes I am sarcastic. Why not? DPR takes themselves way too seriously. Unlike apparently a lot of DPR readers, I can't afford the latest and greatest and DPR being owned by Amazon is out to sell. True Simon?

@rz350You have already seen Canon and Nikon's response to the A9. Nothing. They cannot compete with it.

Canon can't even put 4K in a DSLR body with mp4 compression and no crop and Nikon doesn't even have an aps-c camera with on-sensor PDAF. Neither company has ever made a DSLR with IBIS, despite it first appearing in an A-mount DSLR 14 years ago.

I'm not being triumphalist, it's just important to look at the evidence of what they have done, not what you would like them to do.

Give them a chance. The camera just came out. It takes a long time to develop a camera. It could be argued that this is Sony's answer to the 1Dxii and D6 but development of the A9 started before those cameras.

"This is the kind of thing that has me questioning my future with Canon." I got my answer already: No future! For the last two days, I've been contemplating on what to do. I was so ready to pull the trigger on the 6D II when it was first announced but.... I sold my 6D yesterday, but still I have several L lenses which I love. However, looking at Canon's current trend, it will only get worse because IMO Canon is playing this protectionism game with its customers.

You can't have it all in one body. For resolution - 5DSr, for DR - 5D IV, articulated screen - 6DII... You would need at least three Canon bodies in order to get the features that are crucial to most still photogs while other competitors had already given some of those features years ago in one body and at a lower price, and I'm only speaking as a still photographer who doesn't even touch videos...

I was a proud canon user until the last 2 years where they refused to give their customer the kind of upgrade they deserve. I move to sony because I'm a low buget hybrid shooter. I did not sell all the canon lens hoping that they will come out with a proper 4K camera. Came the 5D IV and canon purposely cripple the 4K to protect the higher model. At that moment, I know that my hope for a decent 4k from Canon is fading away.Still, as a canon user for 12 years. I still wait for 6D II with little hope for 4K. Now that is out and knowing canon only release the camera every 5 years, I decide to sell all my canon lens. so long canon.I will not go back to canon even if they come out with 4K in the future, because they were not there when I need them.Sony are not perfect by any means but they give me everything I need, and my clients with 4k TV love it when I give them the project in 4K.

I'm not dumping on Canon because I hate Canon. I just don't understand why they can't offer some of the same value to their customers that the upstarts are offering. Sony throws everything but the kitchen sink into all of their cameras, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. Fuji offers generations of upgrades on existing models, reducing fears if instant obsolescence when new cameras are released.

If you want to make the argument Canon offers safe, proven specs for the sake of durability, ask owners of the Canon 70D who have had to replace their motherboard because they were shooting "too much video."

Canon was top dog for a long time. Now they're acting like an old dog that can't learn new tricks. People aren't going to keep giving good money for okay cameras.

Here's my take on it. I was halfway over to Nikon till the 5D MK4 showed up and pleased me greatly enough that I've sold what I did have for Nikon and gone back to Canon. Meanwhile, I'm thinking the 6D MKII must be awesome because I've seen the huge improvement on the dynamic range with the now older 5D MK4, so imagine my surprise then when I see that Canon has not started to implement the better quality sensors across it's newer models, despite extremely good competition from newer competitors. Talk about a company, shooting itself in the foot. my, my, my. I've been shooting Canon gear professionally since the late 80's and this does seem to be a moment where I'm truly starting to lose faith in the leadership of this company's future direction. It get's to a point where as one of literally millions of photographers who have fortunes tied up in their camera gear, I'm pretty much only still using Canon for that very reason. sincerely Sean

If you are using their camera models for professionals like 5DIII/IV/S/ S R, 7DII or 1D line, there is no reason to be upset, those are truly excellent DSLRs for still photography. But their non professional models which are actively crippled are the problems.

I just look at what the market offers those who aren't tied to a bunch of Canon glass and it just seems so mean spirited for them to expect anyone to buy a new camera now with the inferior quality sensor. Come on now. I think once you introduce something like that, you do it across the board and improve all your cameras, pleasing your users and others who are drawn to the quality. Something like this where we professionals have been asking for them to finally give us a full screen camera that has a swivel back and this is what they give us. No! I believe this will cost Canon a lot of users. I already know people who are selling their Canon gear, knowing it could be another 5 years before we see what's next. You know what this reminds me of?... Radio Shack. A decent enough quality store, but usually a year or two behind the main stream when it comes to the latest technology. What's happened to that chain store. There's a lot, lot less of them out there now...

More about gear in this article

The EOS 6D Mark II is essentially a full frame version of the EOS 80D. However, we weren't exactly bowled-over by it, when we reviewed it. Does that mean it's not worth the cost of upgrading? Let us walk you through the differences.

Both Nikon Japan and Canon Japan have warned users that forthcoming DSLRs will be delayed. The 100th anniversary edition of Nikon’s D5 has been put back by a couple of weeks, and Canon's 6D Mark II/EF 24-70mm F4L kit in Japan is also delayed.

A close look at the EOS 6D II's Raw files suggest its dynamic range has taken a significant step backwards compared with the company's recent DSLRs. We look at how much difference this might make for your photos.

Latest in-depth reviews

360 photos and video can be very useful for certain applications (as well as having fun). The Vuze+ is an affordable 360 camera that supports both 2D and 3D (stereo vision) capture, and might be the best option for someone wanting to experiment with the 360 format.

The Mikme Pocket is a portable wireless mic with particular appeal to smartphone users looking to up their game and improve the quality of recorded audio without the cost or complexity or traditional equipment.

The 90D is essentially the DSLR version of the EOS M6 Mark II mirrorless camera that was introduced alongside it. Like the M6 II, it features a 32MP sensor, Dual Pixel AF, fast burst shooting and 4K/30p video capture. It will be available mid-September.

The S1H is a full frame mirrorless camera designed with videographers in mind and includes advanced features like 6K video capture, 4:2:2 10-bit internal recording, improved video scopes, high frame rate recording, Panasonic Varicam color science and more.

Latest buying guides

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at nine current models and chosen our favorites.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

Whether you're new to the Micro Four Thirds system or a seasoned veteran, there are plenty of lenses available for you. We've used pretty much all of them, and in this guide we're giving your our recommendations for the best MFT lenses for various situations.

Blackmagic has announced an update to Blackmagic RAW that adds support, via plugins, to Adobe Premiere Pro and Avid Media Composer. Blackmagic also announced a pair of Video Assist 12G monitor-recorders with brighter HDR displays, USB-C recording and more.

Sony has announced the impending arrival of its next-generation video camera system, the FX9. The full-frame E-mount system is set to be released later this year with a 16-35mm E-mount lens to follow in spring 2020.

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

The Fujifilm X-A7 is the newest addition to the company's X-series lineup. Despite its relatively low price of $700 (with lens), Fujifilm didn't skimp on features. Click through to find out what you need to know about the X-A7.

The entry-level Fujifilm X-A7 improves upon many of its predecessor's weak points, including a zippier processor, an upgraded user experience and 4K/30p video capture. It goes on sale October 24th for $700 with a 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens.

Robert Frank's unconventional approach to photography and filmmaking defied generational constraints and inspired some of the most influential artists of the 20th century. He passed away today at age 94.

All three devices offer a standard 12MP camera plus, for the first time on an iPhone, an ultra-wide 13mm camera module. The 11 Pro and 11 Pro Max also retain the telephoto camera of previous generations.

Phase One's new XT camera system incorporates the company's IQ4 series of digital backs with up to 151MP of resolution and marries them to a line of Rodenstock lenses using the new XT camera body. The result is an impressively small package for one of the largest image sensors currently on the market - take a closer look here.

Phase One has announced its new XT camera system, which includes an IQ4 digital back, body (made up of a shutter release button and two dials) and a trio of Rodenstock lenses. The company is marketing the XT as a 'travel-friendly' product for landscape photographers.